₦airaland Forum

Maamin:
Lol... the last time i check, no one is pointing a gun at your forehead to believe in anything or come here to refute the existence of God....and Oh! cartoons defy logic and science, start a thread on that and I will take you serious. Got it?

Ok, how does cartoon defy logic and science, genius?

Atheists will inherit the earth.

I so long for the demise of these dumb god worshipers.

sinequanon:
You have ditched parts of your culture without even realizing it.

That is how good a brainwashing job Western education has done on you.

You use Western science, science, and understanding of nature ALL interchangeably. That is what the brainwashing has done, to the point where you can't even recognize aspects of your culture that you have lost.

Western education dominated, not because it was an improvement, but because it was forced on people.

Guy, your intestine has somehow filled up your skull and your brain is now in your abdomen. You have problem with using your brain for thinking.

Better I start talking to a dog who has some brain cells left in its skull.

Youngsage:
Inherent corruption? No.
God did not create angels as puppets.
They were created with the inherent ability to distinguish [size=15pt]good from evil[/size], lucifer knew his thoughts were evil, and i believe he was aware of the consequences, yet he decided to carry on- his choice if you ask me.
Those thoughts which led to actions were not inherent. They were a result of his pride.

Why should they have the ability to distinguish good from evil, if evil didn't already exist in heaven?

How can Lucifer know evil, if evil doesn't already exist?

How did pride get into existence? I mean, pride is supposed to be a spirit right? Some kind of demon right? I seem to remember someone say something like spirit of pride, spirit of lie etc. Who created those? Where did they come from?

Maamin:
Go and debunk confusianism,hinduism..in fact open a thread we shall all gladly come there to see and witness it rather.

People do that...

Maamin:
No..95% or more love watching animated cartoon, why is there no thread yet

That's because those who watch animated cartoon do not tell me that I will spend eternity in some fire created by some monster, neither do these people try to bring a really dumb creation idea into science, neither do they try to choke me with their gospel everyday. Got it?

sinequanon:
No it shouldn't. That is precisely how you lose your culture instead of developing it.

The ATTITUDE of the diviners and healers towards nature was very different to that found in "modern" medicine and botany.

The modern terminology subsumes the African culture under Western practices and consigns the difference to the rubbish heap.

You are an example of how that process works. You lose your culture because you have accepted the language that consigns it to the rubbish heap.

Wrong again. Change is constant. People change the way they do things to get better result.
I reject the idea that everything modern is western.
Everybody everywhere is learning more and evolving.
Evolving the African culture, so that it can produce better result is not loss of it, but development of it.

Science, technology and medicine are not western culture. Instead, these are modern art which is practised by everybody, everywhere.

The term "western education", to denote the modern educational system is wrong. A university in Mali existed centuries past, before Europeans got to us.

Maamin:
Of-course you bother way too much on something that does not exist.

When you start creating thread about cinderella,snowwhite,sleeping beauty,repunzel etc..then I will take you serious.

If about 95% of the world population believe in those things you listed, then we'd create threads about them, definitely.

Youngsage:
No evil can enter into heaven. All the angelic beings are created pure and blameless, so the moment Satan became proud as a result of His own thoughts, he lost his place in heaven. Seems you had difficulty tryin to get what I was trying to pass across in those two lines. Sorry abt that

A weakness in Satan - a corruption in the creation, the fault of the creator...

Youngsage:
- He wasn't just a devoted angel, he was very very powerful. As a matter of fact, he was an Archangel, the most powerful of the three that God created.
He was a magnificent being , with more intellect, wisdom, ability and beauty than the other angelic beings, was awesome to behold. No wonder God named him Lucifer which means 'Day Star' or 'Son of The Morning'.
To cut the long story short, it got to a point that he became discontent with his position, even as the angel of worship/music director in heaven, and prominence and wanted to overthrow God. His downfall began because Pride entered his heart, and because of his power, he got some angels on his side, one third of all the angels, this then led to a war between lucifer and his men, and the other archangel/angels.
He was defeated, and together with the fallen angels, was banished from Heaven and God changed his name to Satan/Devil meaning 'adversary', and these fallen angels are known today as Demons... And so on.

The spirit that polluted Satan, came from Satan himself, it entered him- from him that moment he allowed Pride take over him. Hence the origin of sin originated from the creation, not the creator. Never.
Although Satan, or Lucifer was not created evil, he originated His own sin which which was pride and rebellion against God.
The same sin Adam commited. Rebellion- deliberately disobeying God's intsruction- The first or original sin- on Earth...

Ok, so god's perfect creation has an inherent corruption.
Then god's not perfect to begin with.

Confusion in the camp of the deluded

sinequanon:
They were traditional healers and diviners -- the same people Westerners daubed "witch doctors".

Healer and diviner were one and the same person. They did not use "the scientific method" to develop their medicine.

You are trying to call them "botanists and naturalists" in retrospect, AFTER discovering that they beat the Europeans to Cesarean Section.

In fact, the reason the whole thing comes as a surprise to you is because of how the history books have belittled the achievements of Africans. Now you are looking for a Western label, as if that is going to change who these healers were.

By time your children grow up, the history would probably have been completely revised. It will discover "evidence" that in fact the Europeans brought the surgery to the ignorant and backward "witch doctors" of Africa.

Wrong!! Do you think your article ar.oused an interest I don't already have?
People may be called by whatever names anyone deems fit, but people in Africa already studied plants and animal around them to know which is edible and which is medicinal.
Do you think its also the Europeans that thought them which food to eat?
In a modern world, such art should be dubbed with modern terms. Simple

"Hate" is not the word.

Any argument that destroys one religion will destroy all others, so by debunking one, we are actually debunking all.

ok, lets start...

sinequanon:
From the same document I referenced earlier...

During the nineteenth century, however, surgery was transformed -- both technically and professionally. A new era in surgical practice began in [size=14pt]1846[/size] at Massachusetts General Hospital when dentist William T. G. Morton used [size=14pt]diethyl ether[/size] while removing a facial tumor. This medical application of [size=14pt]anesthesia rapidly spread to Europe[/size]. In obstetrics, though, there was opposition to its use based on the biblical injunction that women should sorrow to bring forth children in atonement for Eve's sin. This argument was substantially demolished when the head of the Church of England, Queen Victoria, had chloroform administered for the births of two of her children (Leopold in [size=14pt]1853[/size] and Beatrice in 1857). Subsequently, anesthesia in childbirth became popular among the wealthy and practical in cases of cesarean section.

So, you see, the African "witch doctors" with their "snake oil", "backwardness", "mysticism" and "superstitious delusions" were way ahead of the Europeans, despite the claim that the Europeans had done a successful Cesarean in a British base in South Africa -- what, when they still didn't have anesthetics?

What would these "witch doctors" have been able to do by now?

They are not witch doctors, they are botanists and naturalists.

malvisguy212:
read more here.

https://www.intellihub.com/darwinism-eugenics-and-the-silent-genocide/

A few god-believers who are eugenicists from the list of Eugenicist found here http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_eugenicists

Alexander Graham Bell - "God has strewn our paths with wonders, and we shall certainly not go through Life with our eyes shut."

Alexis Carrel - "I believe in the existence of God, in the immortality of the soul, in Revelation and in all the Catholic Church teaches."

Just use GNU C++ compiler. Download, add to your environment and compile as c++ file.cpp.

malvisguy212:
read more here.

https://www.intellihub.com/darwinism-eugenics-and-the-silent-genocide/

ok, how is atheism guilty of this?

malvisguy212:
my point is, one of the world greatest scientist ignore genetic defect.

What genetic defect did he ignore?

shadowgwalker:
we fly so high, the birds get jealous - Nigerian Airforce

atheist are just a special set of lazy self-centred mofos. they claim to be wise, and they keep trying to defend every wrong observations with bloody negative facts that ain't true.
Atheist is simply the absence of religion. please that's my own observation, I don't have time to study group of persons that are abstract.

Absence of god cuts it better. One may not have religion but still believe in some god. We atheists dont believe in god.

DrJoe1:
because the best form of defense is 'attack'
we are tired of people knocking on our door every sunday to tell us about jehova
we are tired of paying high school fees for our children only for them to return home with 'fish swallowed jona story'
we are tired of people disturbing our early morning sleep with megaphones
our markets and schools are no longer safe just because some mofos want to inherit 72 virgins
enough is enough..........
..... jesus is coming soon 36AD - 2014 ......what a joke.

@Bold - I once had to spend some nights in Egbeda area of Lagos and from 5 AM to around 6:30AM, some dumb, deluded id.iots would carry megaphone at that time and start preaching their really annoying gospel. This wakes me up from sleep and I always go berserk because I could not return to sleep.
Lawless country indeed. Glad I don't live there.

malvisguy212:
GOD told adam not to eat from the tree of Good and evil and when they disobey God they face the punishment, am very sure adam and eve would have thought there children not to disobey God and teach them what is good and bad, so there conscience no what is good and evil.

In Darwin’s time there was an idea among the
nobility that their genetics were superior to those of
the rest of society. Many families including Darwin’s
took this belief to extreme levels by practicing incest
as a tradition.
They thought that if adolescents were to marry within
their own family then not only would all the wealth
stay in the family, but the “good” genes would also.
This also ensured that the family fortunes would be
retained for many future generations. This practice is
very common in aristocratic families, which explains
why they are all extremely mentally unstable. Darwin
came from a very classist and racist elite level of
society and that is reflected in his work, especially
“The Descent of Man”.

Even if this is true, this mean evolution and atheism are wrong? And it immediately suggest the jewish god exist?
Delusion of grandeur.

sinequanon:
I don't know what you are calling "modern times" but Africans were carrying out successful Cesarean Sections long before the Europeans.

By this, I mean that indigenous healers delivered the baby through midline incisions, saving BOTH child and mother.

Meanwhile, earlier surgeries recorded as European refer to last minute interventions in which the mother died, the object being to save the child, from certain death.

According to one estimate not a single woman survived cesarean section in Paris between 1787 and 1876.

Meanwhile, a Brit by the name of R.Felkin reported from his travels around the same time that Ugandans had been doing C-Sections for a very long time.

This historical fact is currently being "revised".

I like this. Any useful link to confirm?

DeepSight:
God is not the physical singularity predating the Big Bang of this universe... just a note. Also an ability to cause events does not connote that the intrinsic nature of the causer thereby changes. However, will expand on both your concerns when free. Take care.

The intrinsic nature of the causer may remain the same, but it now has an acquired nature, which causes it to have a secondary nature, which is different from its intrinsic nature. Break that, and you will have the intrinsic nature again.

Kay17:
1. On a theoretical level

For a self existent entity to be unchangeable/immutable, it has to be independent and insulated from any cause and at the same time isolated from any causal chain, including as a causal agent. Because there is a motion of change in a causal agent which ought to be absent in a self existent entity.

Exactly. If we are talking about a singularity from which everything came and to which everything return, and if this singularity is the only thing that can exist before anything is (which I think I and DeepSight agree on), then ability to cause by changing must also be present in it. Therefore, it must be mutable, else only this singularity will exist for infinity.

If this is not true, then something else is needed to bring about plurality from this singularity. DeepSight does not see this as a contradiction to his view of one "eternity" however.

menesheh:
According to research of Febvre, there did not exist a single atheist in 16th century Europe (Febvre 1946). The first atheists appeared in France, intellectuals who were influenced by the philosophy of Descartes (Buckley 1990). A clandestine literature came into being in the end of the 17th century and moreover in the beginnings of the 18th century in France, where a small number of authors formulated atheistic ideas for the first time in history. Denis Diderot and Paul d´Holbach were the two most important atheistic authors during the 18th century.

I do not like it when these Europeans insinuate everything modern originated from them. The Piraha people of the Amazon do not have supreme spirit or god, though they believe in spirits. But these spirits are just how they explain the things they dont understand.

Perhaps the first written record of atheism was in Europe, but this philosophy did not originate in Europe. People with useful brain are in every race.

DeepSight:
No, I doubt that it is a belief system. It is rather the simple and self evident. As with most people, you do not grasp it either. It has thus become a tiresome point for me to discuss, and these days i'd rather not worry myself much discussing same. This is moreso because this is only one step of understanding what is at play. If you cannot grasp this simple step, why should we bother with the many steps ahead of it which will clearly confuse you the more? I do not mean to sound as though I know something special or the other, I simply mean to convey that if we cannot get past 1 is 1, we cannot discuss.

DeepSight, if you cannot clearly explain why 1 is 1 to adults (not just me, but many (most in fact) as you have acknowledged yourself @red), then perhaps, the problem is with you, not us who don't get your point.
Making a discussion unnecessarily complex so that people do not understand you is not a discussion at all, its just you flattering yourself.

@Bold - Why does it sound like you just want me to agree with what you say, without actually making it clear? You cannot conclude that because I could not grasp your starting point, I would not grasp any other issue. This is nothing but flattery and if that makes you feel intelligent, then bask in it.

Some other points in the discussion might make me get the whole issue, you know!

DeepSight: You see, this exactly shows again why I hardly bother these days. Because if you happen to know anything about that which I have written ad infinitum ad nauseum on this forum, you would know that indeed, this is exactly what I have espoused: namely - that the God Head, by natural law must exude both the positive and the negative. This does not mean that the God Head is changing anymore than (by analogy only) a magnet with both north and south inclined magnetic pulls/ negative and positive magnetic charges could be said to be changing in terms of the intrinsic quality of what it is. It would attract or exude these charges all the same.

God, Reality and such self existent things as Eternity do indeed exude charges that result in the created complexity of everything you see around you in the cosmos and infinitely far beyond.

This does not mean that the God Head itself changes or that Eternity Changes.

I have, in the same vein, used this very same principle to explain the inevitable existence of Light and Dark, Good and Evil, Positive and Negative, Up and Down, and even Right and Left.

I agree with this. It is the same thing I meant when I said

ooman: 1 is 1 truly, but what if there are different charges of 1? Negative and positive that could attract and so, build up some complexity.

The problem therefore lies in how we define change. I think my definition is stricter than yours. When I say this singularity "changes", I meant it stops exude its inherent property as its primary property. To simplify, + and - becoming neutral. Neutral is a new property (charge-less), but can be broken down to its component + and -. This is what I meant by "change".

But apparently, this doesn't qualify as change enough for you. And it's OK, I am not trying to force you to accept this as change. Its OK the way you want to view it.

But just one question however. Let us assume that this charged singularity (reference to bold phrase in your post) is a proton and an electron and that this singularity exists as a proton and an electron. Then these charges attract and become Hydrogen. Hydrogen fuses to form Helium. The reaction continues and oxygen is formed. Two hydrogen atoms are attract by one oxygen atom and water forms, water is polar (charged) and so could aid other complex processes (life). Does this qualify as change enough for you or does not it? Because this is exactly what I meant by change.

DeepSight: Aside from the fact that I used "1 is 1" as a representation and exemplary statement only - an analogy - the quantities you state are different quantities and only bear similar representative figures within their written forms. This is a bad response to that which I tried to convey.

It is also light years far away from anything to do with the precept of self-existence I described.

Ok

DeepSight: You could certainly go on to show how little you grasp of what is discussed here. No matter. I don't have the energy for needless brick-batting.

You think I have energy to waste? If you cannot communicate what you understand, then you should consider checking yourself for the fault.

DeepSight: This again just shows how far away you are from understanding anything I have written. I do not assume this. In fact, I have in the past described time as the continuum into which events are interpolated and space as the void into which objects are interpolated.

If you reflect carefully on this alone you will see that your characterization of my thoughts is wrong.

One question, does the colored make time an object with separate existence?

DeepSight: Well if it is not something, then it must be nothing. I hope you see yourself how this contradicts your own statement yesterday where you acknowledged that there is no such thing as nothing.

Well, you misunderstood my use of "something" and "nothing" here. I meant eternity is not an object that exists, its an abstract that's why something in quotes.

DeepSight: Again, if it is nothing, then nothing would exist. There would be no time, no space, no universes - aboslutely nothing, for: into what would all these be interpolated? Into "Nothing"?

Again though, I verily doubt that you will appreciate this simple point.

Well, this simple point is your own idea.

Interpolate means - insert (something of a different nature) into something else or to introduce data from different source into the original source. It also has a not-related mathematical meaning.

Considering that you've been using the term "interpolate" a lot, and according to the meaning given above, you do realize that your singularity requires some other self existent thing for anything to exist at all. Hence, we are not just talking about one fundamental form anymore, but many, which are interpolated.

DeepSight: This is not true to the extent that infinite real time is an unavoidable reality in all scenarios that one may project.
Your statement is the same as saying that Space is abstract, or that infinite space is abstract. As a matter of fact it is a reality as there can be no conceivable limits to, or borders of space - even micro-space is infinite. And this is not an abstraction but the reality that we live in and that all things are interpolated into.

Space is the dimension in which objects exist. The relationship between space and time is that the longer the space, the longer the time it takes to cover it. So there is a space-time dimension. This does not mean space [directly] is time. An object could exist in space without moving, yet time will pass for it. An object could move faster in space, time will run slower for it.

My point is time only qualifies the existence of an object in space. And so, this direct sameness you bestow on space and time is invalid.
As you (unconsciously) agreed to @bold, time only qualifies, it is not.

DeepSight: Again this is wrong because, object or no: Eternity is Eternity. It cannot be circumscribed or limited by perception of interpolated objects.

With the bold I agree. An abstract is an abstract. However, it only comes into play when there is an object to qualify.

"It's existence [this eternity] is not based on the object it qualifies. Without the object, it exists, and when the object is, it qualifies it, and when the object is not, it exists" - is this how you qualify this "eternity"?

DeepSight: As discussed above, you are very wrong, but I sense of course that there is no point to an elongation of the matter. You may carry on with your views, it is fine: neither your opinion nor mine hurts anybody.

Take care.

Of course it hurts no one. And we could carry on with our philosophy if only it does not matter to know the truth.
I do not seek elongation. I seek understanding.

I do not want this to get longer than it should. So I will just clarify some points.

DeepSight:
No, something that is self existent cannot change because its intrinsically existent property cannot but be what it is: it cannot be something else. This is as simple as saying that 1 is 1, however this particular issue I find, has been rather hard for most people to absorb or grasp - I just don't know why. It is perfectly clear to me.

Actually, I think its a belief system for you, rather than that this concept is hard to grasp for most people.
1 is 1 truly, but what if there are different charges of 1? Negative and positive that could attract and so, build up some complexity.

What if 1 is "read" differently from 11 and differently from 111 and also differently from 1111? If you are familiar with binary systems, you'd know that 1 is 1, 11 is 3, 111 is 7(octal decimal), 1111 is 15 (F - hexadecimal), 11111111 is 256 (FF hexadecimal).

I could go one, but the point is that it all depends on how this singularity is affected.

DeepSight: I said that an example of a self existent thing is eternity. Eternity is Eternity and it cannot be something else. It cannot change: it is immutable. Many events and times may be interpolated into it: but eternity forever simply remains eternity. Nothing more, just that: constant, unchangeable, immovable, indestructible, having no beginning and no end. It is intrinsically what it is and thus cannot change. It is also intangible.

You assume that eternity is an object. Eternity is not "something", rather its an abstract that is used to describe an object. Its more like saying time is an object. Eternity qualifies infinite time period, and both are abstracts. In fact, eternity does not make sense if there is no object that could exist for all eternity. Nature exists, and nature is an object not an abstract. So this irreducible singularity is not an abstract but must be an object - that could exist for all eternity (abstract time period).

DeepSight: And as I said prior: this is one key to slightly apprehending the nature of God: and this is the simple secret as to the ancient truth repeated in most ancient religions and orders of thought: the truth that God is unchangeable.

This is because God is the sum of all self existent realities - and self existent realities are immutable and intangible. Thus God itself is immutable and intangible.

I fear I go too far and should try to halt here. My recent experiences give me to revere that which is referred to as the God Head much much more than I could previously imagine. I therefore find it somewhat presumptuous - and even rather sacrilegious for me to attempt to explain or deconstruct the unfathomable God Head.

If you could describe an abstract as if its a real existent object, I see the reason why you could think a god exists. All gods are abstracts, none is real.

Advertico:
and what happened?

I thought...

Reyginus:
Is it a good thing to reject or accept charity because you are poor?

You may want to retain your dignity, which they failed to do.